:1-15 Sons of Levi up to the captivity by Babylon:16-17 Sons of Levi:18 Sons of Kohath:19 Sons of Merari:20-30 Sons of Gershom:31-32 Historical comment about those who David set over the service of song of the sons of Levi:33-38 Heman's ancestry:39-47 Asaph's ancestry:49-53 Sons of Aaron who were appointed to all manner of service of the tabernacle (:48):54-81 The cities given to the sons of Levi:54-61 For Kohath:62 For Gershom:63-65 For Merari:66-70 For the residue of Kohath:71-76 For Gershom:77-81 For the residue of Merari

Having traced the line of the sons of Levi right up to the Babylonian captivity the record then lists the cities in which they dwelt through out the land of Israel. We notice also how David chose singers from amongst the sons of Levi. Joshua 21 gives the first account of the cities of the Levites. 1 Chronicles 6 restates the detail.

V.32 The dwelling place here, would be the tent which David had erected for receiving the ark after it was removed from the house of Obededom (2Sam 6:17) This was a considerable time before the temple was built.

The genealogy of Levi in the first three verses of today's chapter (1Chron 6:1-3) help us to focus on the short length of time the Israelites were in Egypt. Levi - Kohath - Amram - Moses. Kohath and his 2 brothers were born in Canaan (Gen 46:8-11). We know that Joseph was 17 when he was sold as a slave (Gen 37:2).Therefore Levi was around 28 at that time. (Joseph was born at the end of the 14 years Jacob had worked for his 2 wives, and Levi was the 3rd son, which makes him about 11 years older than Joseph.) Amram's wife, Jochebed, was born to Levi in Egypt (Num 26:59), which means of-course that Amram married his aunt. Moses, their son, was 80 when the Israelites left Egypt. So all of this gives us less than 200 years for the Israelites in Egypt. We are therefore led to understand that Gen 15:13, which is sometimes thought of as saying the stay in Egypt would be 400 years, actually means that Abram's seed from Isaac until Joshua's entry back into the Promised land would be 400 yrs.

Vs.54,55,57 The city of Hebron was given to the Kohathites. Originally Joshua had given Hebron to Caleb as per his request (Josh 14:12-15). But we read that certain cities were to be given to the Levites as commanded by Moses (Josh 21:8-11). Amongst these were the six cities of refuge, of which Hebron became one (Num 35:6).

Did Caleb agree to relinquish his claim to Hebron and cede it to the Kohathites, and instead take possession of the surrounding fields and villages (v.56; Josh 21:12)? Or did Caleb's original understanding of the possession of Hebron take into account the Levites' provision?

6:54 We may think of Chronicles as just lists of names. However from this point in this chapter we learn also about the provision of dwellings for the Levites which gives us some insight into which towns had a permanent Levitical presence – from which one might conclude that the people of that city were better instructed in the things of God – when the priesthood was faithful.

Vs.14,15Jehozadak, alternatively called Jozadak or Josedech, was the son of the chief priest Seraiah. This Seraiah should not be confused with the Seraiah whom Jeremiah charged with a task when taken captive to Babylon (Jer 51:59-64).

Jehozadak was taken captive in 588 BC, but his father, Seraiah, was executed in Riblah (2Kin 25:18-21). It seems that Jehozadak did not amount to much while in captivity, but he did father (and grandfather) high priests who played roles in post-exilic history (Ezra 3:2; Neh 12:26).

6:10 So here we have specific mention of a man who served in Solomon’s temple. Doubtless he was not the only one so we can assume that at this point we are dealing with the time when the temple was consecrated.

6:16-22 Tracing the descendants of Levi we see that Korah – who led the rebellion against Moses – Num 16 – was the fourth generation from Levi. Moses, likewise, was the fourth generation. So these two are of the fourth generation from the going down into Egypt. Moses was selected by God, being of the fourth generation, in fulfilment of Gen 15:6. So maybe we have an indication as to why Korah challenged Moses. Maybe he thought he was the one who should be the deliverer.

v2-15 traces the line from Aaron through to Jehozadak, who was Jeshua's father. Jeshua came back from the captivity and became the priest over the new temple that was built in Jerusalem. This tells us that Chronicles was written at the time of the captivity, as this specific section of the book concerns only one man, Jehozadak, not any of the multitude of other descendants of Aaron. The point it's making is that there is a continuation of the priestly line right through to the time of this new temple.

6:10 Azariah mentioned in this verse as executing the priest’s office – exactly the phrase used of Zacharias – Luke 1:8 – was the son of Johanan. The information seems irrelevant. However when Zacharias’ son was to be named he was to be called “John” – the Greek form of Johanan.

6:32 The historical narrative about David bringing the ark to Zion and Solomon building the temple are key points in Israel’s history. However that record gives no indication of ongoing worship between the two events. This little comment here fills in some detail about ongoing worship in the reign of David and Solomon.

Reading 2: Ezekiel 19

v.10-14 - A graphic picture of the spiritual decline of the nation of Israel and how they have abused their inheritance. That which their 'mother' had has been pushed further and further from that which sustains it, and is dried up and no longer brings forth fruit in the current generation.

Following on from the comment above we see a picture here of just what was described in the previous chapter, and the reason why it was no longer practical for God to sanctify the children by their parents. Human nature had got such a hold on these people that the fear that their actions might jeopardise their children's salvation no longer had a hold on them.

19:11-12 That the kings of Judah has 'strong rods' which were 'broken' marks the point that they were taken into captivity, not because they were physically weak before the Chaldeans. So we conclude they were taken away because of their sins.

Vs.3,4 The lioness is Jerusalem. The first lion being described is Jehoahaz who was taken captive by Pharaoh-necho and brought to Egypt in 609 BC (see 2Kin 23:33,34).

Vs.:5-9 The second lion, being described was Jehoiakim who rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. This brought about retribution, and Jehoiakim died a violent death in 599 BC. He was unceremoniously buried (Jer 22:18,19).

V.14 A third lion of Judah is yet to appear. He is the Lord Jesus Christ who will have the right to wear the crown that these other lions have abused (Eze 21:26,27; Rev 5:5). Jesus will be that strong stem; the sceptre for ruling (ESV).

God gave Ezekiel two different lamentations in today’s chapter, both with a similar message. Israel has been put down. The lion has been taken (Eze 19:1-9), and the vine removed from a well watered garden into the wilderness (Eze 19:10-14). Why didn't they learn?

V.10 The prophet here pictures Israel as she was under king David; flourishing and bringing forth good fruit. Ultimately disobedience and wickedness prevailed, and it was time for the judgements of God to be revealed, so we read in the 12th verse that the vine was to be "plucked up in fury".

19:14 "No strong rod". No more of the line of David are now to rule the nation....until the LORD shall send the rod of His strength out of Zion (Psa 110:2). There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots (Isa 11:1). To reign not only as the king of Israel, but, over the whole earth.

V.2 The figure of a lion features prominently in descriptions of Judah and Jerusalem. Judah is here portrayed as a mother. Jerusalem is a lioness bringing forth her cubs (the kings of Judah). Jerusalem is referred to, elsewhere, as Ariel which means lion of God (Isa 29:1,2). And, Jesus is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5).

19:2 The ‘lions’ are the leaders of the nations round about Israel. The ‘whelps’ are Israel’s young kings who were appointed by the Babylonians. This provides the basis for seeing the ‘young lions’ we read of later Eze 38:13

V.2 etc. Although whelps (KJV); cubs (ESV) refer to specific kings of Judah, Judah itself is called a whelp (cub) (Gen 49:9). But, we are told that this whelp will develop to maturity, so that no one might challenge him: who dares rouse him? (ESV).Of course, this particular whelp, who will mature to be unchallenged, is referring to Jesus (Gen 49:10; Rev 5:5).

If the young lions signify the kings of Israel, as has already been said, then what is the lioness? In v2 and v5 she bore and nurtured these Kings. Yet if we apply this to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, it doesn't fit because the record specifically states they had different mothers (see 2Kin 23:31 and 36).

In order to help us with this problem, we are now given a second (but equivalent) picture in v10-14. Scripture often does this in case we're tempted to mix up the actors in a play with the characters they portray. God reminds us that He could use any figure to bring across the same message. This is important, because it reminds us that figures in scripture are not fixed to any one context, but can be re-used. The lion could apply to any king of any land, in a different context. So neither does the lion always refer to a king of Israel, nor does the vine always refer to Judah's ability to produce kings.

So getting back to the question, we can see from the combination of the second figure with the first, that the lioness and vine refer simply to the fruit-bearing characteristic of Judah. Basically, the king-making element of the national consciousness. So when certain nobles, leaders and decision makers were carried away to Babylon (a dry and barren place for king making) no more kings were ever produced (v13-14).

19:5 A common saying is “patience is a virtue” whilst not being a Biblical phrase the concept is clearly Biblical. God seeks for patience in His children. Then He often makes them wait some time before He provides what is required – The promise of a son to Abraham, the Manna in the wilderness, the promised arrival of Samuel to Saul. Israel, here, did not learn the lesson. Impatiently they turned away from Him to their own devices. How patient are we?

2. Eze 19:1 - the princes were the Seed Royal - Jehoahaz (2nd son of Josiah), Jehoiakim (1st son of Josiah), Jehoiachin (son of Jehoiakim), Zedekiah (son of Josiah and uncle of Jehoiachin) - the princes for whom lamentation was made were of Judah (Gen 49:9).

3. Eze 19:2,10 - the mother (lioness or vine) is the nation Israel or more specifically Judah; David's family once great and powerful would be overthrown.

5. Eze 19:5-9 - Jehoiachin was perhaps the 2nd welp, he became a young lion and was apparently enthroned by his people but taken to Babylon in 597 BC by Nebuchadrezzar who seems to have encouraged other nations to join in the hunt against him (2Kin 24:8-20;25:1-7;2Chron 36:9-10); some feel the 2nd welp could have been Jehoiakim or Zedekiah but others argue that neither was enthroned by their people as Ezekiel 19:5 suggests.

6. Eze 19:10 - (NIV) " 'Your mother was like a vine in your vineyard planted by the water; the vine was fruitful and full of branches because of abundant waters."

7. Eze 19:10,11 - perhaps this refers to the vine of Israel (Isa 5:1-7;Psa 80:8-16) having born strong "rods"<4294> as scepters for David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah.

8. Eze 19:12 - in time wickness prevailed and the vine was plucked up.

9. Eze 19:13 - now instead of the fruitfulness and waters of Ezekiel 19:10 we have "a dry and thirsty ground".

"east wind". Eze 19:12 Just a thought! This reminded me of Psa 48:12 where we assume or possible link the royal navy being destroyed (ships of Tarshish) by the Russian navy prior to our masters return. However when we follow the words east wind through scripture, Hos 13:14, Gen 41:6 we see that east wind was a powerful wind that bought famine by blcoking out the sun destroying crops etc. Could this east wind refer instead top the economic "famine" the British government has placed upon the once mighty royal navy which has been severly reduced from 2012 onwards?

18:19 Despite Ezekiel’s inspired explanation that men die for their own sins those in captivity are so focussed on blaming their fathers that they cannot see the argument. We must make sure that we are not so prejudiced that we will not see truth simply because it conflicts with our pre-conceived ideas.

19:3 The way in which, in this chapter, the kings and princes of Israel are spoken of as “young lions” provides the evidence for seeing the “young lions” of Eze 38:13 as nationals – or at least the leaders of nations.

Reading 3: Luke 16

v.8 - Let us beware if we seek wisdom that we find the right sort. That which appears wisdom to our earthly minds does not match that which appears wisdom to the mind of the saint of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not want to be one of those referred to in 1Cor.3:18.

v.1 'wasted' catches the behaviour of the prodigal son of the previous chapter. In this parable the one who wasted the goods was not a son but the steward of God's house. That is he typified the religious leaders of Jesus' day. So if they had looked at the prodigal son they might have thought about him in negative ways feeling that they would never be like that. However this next parable turns the tables on them and shows that they are just the same as the prodigal that they have no time for.v.20 Lazarus - the only person named in all of the 60 plus parables that Jesus told. The raising of Lazarus took place maybe three months before the death of Jesus. John 10:22 is about four months before the death of Jesus and the raising of Lazarus took place after that - brief comment is made on this in the notes on John. Given that Lazarus is named and the raising from the dead is also mentioned Luke 16:29 can we conclude that this parable was told after the raising of Lazarus?

The 'unjust steward' is not behaving well. Just because Jesus, in the parable has the rich man commending the steward. Dishonesty cannot be commended. Rather the steward was making friends with 'mammon'.

I find the parable of the unjust steward the most difficult of all parables. There are so many seemingly inconsistent details:

v4 whose houses was he talking about?v8 why did the master commend dishonesty?v8 what has the phrase "the sons of this world are more shrewd in this generation than the sons of light" got to do with it?v9 again, who are the "they"? What are the "everlasting habitations"?v13 why say this, when it seems completely out of context? Why draw this conclusion?

The key lies in verse 15. Here we have two camps, which equate to the two camps in v13, God or Mammon. In v16 we have them repeated again, either the law and the prophets, ending with John, one camp, or the kingdom of God, since John, another camp. In the next parable we have the two camps described as a rich man and a poor man.

The poor man, when he dies, goes to an eternal habitation, with Abraham. The rich man goes to an eternal habitation, Hades. Notice that Jesus uses Abraham, and not Moses or any other prophet. Abraham is the father of faith. The poor man is in the kingdom by faith, with Abraham. The rich man is in Hades along with those who "justify themselves before men" (v15). The rich man realises too late that to be with Abraham requires simply a confession "have mercy on me" (v24). The poor man had realised this early enough. He is the man in Luke 18v13. The rich man is the one in 18v11-12.

In v13 Jesus says "you CANNOT serve God and Mammon". Likewise in v15 "what is highly esteemed among men, is an abomination in the sight of God". To be highly esteemed for your good works is an abomination to God. Riches, self reliance, self justification, trusting in the law, trusting in yourself, is an abomination to God. What He requires is humility. God requires us to abase ourselves. The one who does this will be exalted. The unjust steward realised this. He was the man who realised his own sin, and that it would lead to death. He was the man who realised he had fallen short of the requirements of the law. The law had condemned him to death (v2). Having nowhere to turn (v3), this man turned to Christ, and decided to start forgiving the servants of his master their debts also. He realised that whoever forgives, his sin will be forgiven (Luke 6v38).

Jesus had come to judge the children of Israel. Whoever turned to him in faith, would be forgiven. If that man as a result forgave his fellow, he would receive eternal habitation (v9). Whoever didn't believe, and remained under the law, would remain condemned under that law. There are two camps: Righteousness by the law, riches, comfort, justification in the eyes of men, serving our earthly master, Mammon, leading to condemnation when we fail, eternal death. Or: Humility, abasing oneself, begging for mercy and forgiveness, righteousness by faith in Christ, leading to justification even though we fail, and life everlasting.

16:9,22,23 We have suggested before that the parable of the steward and the rich man and Lazarus are linked. Here we see another link. The 'everlasting habitations' (Luke 16:9) is linked with both 'Abraham's bosom' (Luke 16:22) and 'hell' (Luke 16:23)

16:18 In speaking of putting away the wife Jesus returns to the same point he made at the beginning of his ministry Matt 5:32. But why make the point again? May it be because of the high profile man Herod who had his brother’s wife? Matt 14:3-4

"What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight." (Luke 16:15)

In it's context, Jesus was talking about money, but the words of Jesus go much further than that. Money, possessions, status, fame and power are all things that men value. Think about the most famous people you know. Most of them have at least some of these credentials which is why they are pursued by the media to display to the world.

But along with the things that men value highly, comes a decrease in the things that God values - love, commitment, patience, kindness, generosity, meekness, joy, and self control. It is much better to have these qualities than all the riches and fame in the world because the qualities God looks for in us will last for ever, while the valued things of men will disappear.

So when we find ourselves thinking about things that most other people value highly and discover that they are taking pride of place in our lives, then let's get back on track and begin again to place more value on the characteristics that God will value in our lives.

16:10 The idea of the one who is faithful in little being blessed is developed by Jesus only a few months later when speaking to the disciples again - Matt 25:21. This complements our comment for March this year and so we see that Jesus repeatedly taught the importance of faithfulness in the small things in life.

The Lord spoke the parable of the unjust steward to His disciples in the hearing of the Pharisees, and then followed on with the parable regarding the rich man and Lazarus, spoken directly to the Pharisees.

The first parable hit hard at the Pharisees who loved wealth, power, and position. They served themselves rather than serving Yahweh.

The second parable again hit the Pharisee's love of riches (which cannot save). The rich man represented them. Actually it represented them through their leader the high priest Caiaphas (Matt 26:3) who had five brothers (v.28).

16:15In that the Pharisees ‘justified themselves’ highlights exactly their problem. Having designated themselves as separate (the meaning of Pharisee) they then highlight what they see as their virtues rather than their need for forgiveness. How do we rate in this respect?

Vs.1-9 The unjust steward was about to lose his job. And so, he made friends with debtors and the poor by adjusting their bills. He did this to curry favour from his master's clients. When he was out of a job, he would be received into the homes of those he helped, and not left on the street.

Jesus uses this example to show that we ought to be kind and generous to the debtors and the poor in our lives. If we do, we will be received into a heavenly home. This eternal home will be a place in the Kingdom of God, on earth, which will be established when Jesus returns to the earth.

16:23 In speaking of Abraham ‘afar off’ Jesus is returning to the repentant prodigal on Luke 15:20. Over the years in our comments on this area of Luke’s gospel we have seen a significant number of links between the different parables. Thus we see in this area of Jesus’ teaching a powerful theme flowing through the parables.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable intended for Christ’s disciples (Matt 13:10-11). Therefore, the world will not understand it.

The garments of the rich man are symbolic of royalty and the priesthood (Exo 28) thus, identifying him with the nation of Israel. The Jews were a rich nation, feasting on Gods spiritual blessings. They were the only nation who had the true religion and to whom the son-ship belonged (Exo 19:6) yet, this became their stumbling block, glorying in the gifts rather than the giver of the gifts. Their table came a snare to them (Rom 11:9).

The beggar is symbolic of the Gentiles who “laid at the gate” just outside of Judah longing to be fed and begging for crumbs and were healed, some even spiritually (Mark 7:24-30; Acts 3:2). The Jews considered Gentiles as unclean dogs. Lazarus is the Hebrew equivalent of Eleazer and means, “he whom God helps.”

Their deaths are symbolic. The rich man (unbelieving Jews) goes to “hell” # <86>, hades, and simply means the grave. It is the Hebrew equivalent, # <7585>, sheol, to be buried in the earth. Lazarus (Gentiles) being carried to Abraham’s bosom (Gal 3:6) means that the Gentiles also can become “sons of Abraham.”

Flames are not literal because a wet fingertip cannot cool the tongue. It cannot relieve the anguish of pain in a literal fiery abyss. If literal, we would also have to conclude that all the righteous are able to view their lost loved ones forever incinerating, but never burning up! No, this is about mental anguish, and not physical pain in a hell. The flame represents the Jewish persecutions of 66-70 A.D., 132-135 A.D., the second Jewish revolt against Rome, the Inquisition of the 15th Century, the Holocaust of the 20th Century, and the final purging soon to come in this 21st Century.

The great gulf is symbolic of the big separation that exists between the unbeliever and believer. However, the Jews unbelief would only be temporary (Rom 11:25-26).

The place of torment, # <931>, basanos, “torture,” is the testing and punishment the unbelieving Jews would undergo!

The five brothers identify the rich man as the house of Judah, the Jews! Judah was the progenitor of the Jews. He had five full-blooded brothers through Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen 35:23). The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence identifying the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.

“Abraham,” symbolic of the Jewish believers, answers plainly that anyone who rejects God’s Word in the Old Testament about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of his miraculous resurrection.

It was a sad prophecy that awaited the Jewish nation, yet, the time is soon coming when Yahweh will pour on the Jews the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on the Messiah whom they pierced and mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for him as one grieves for a firstborn (Zech 12:10).

16:12 This life is the training ground for the kingdom. We are given little things to show our trustworthiness in. If we manage that then we will be given greater responsibility in the kingdom. In fact it is really hard to be faithful in small matter for human nature tends to view small things as unimportant. However God’s view is different. We do well to recognise that.

Do these statements of Jesus' fit into the context of the Pharisees' covetousness (v. 14) and self-justification (v. 15)? If so, how?

Since there is no break in what Jesus is saying, it seems like there should be a connection - money or riches being a main part of both the first and last parable in this chapter - as well as vv. 14,15. One key in trying to see a connection is sorting out what he's saying in the last part of v. 16. The verb translated "press into" (N.K.J.V.) is a word meaning to force or to crowd oneself into, or to be seized. It is only used one other time - Matt 11:12 - and is translated there "suffer violence". Since this word then appears to have a pretty negative connotation, then maybe (??) Jesus is saying that his and his apostles' preaching of the gospel of the kingdom is bringing out in people like the Pharisees the most negative of behaviors - i.e. their own innate covetousness and self-justification and even potential violence rather than a humble repentance and acceptance of God's true message.

His point in v. 17 (and the first part of v. 16) may be that the Law and the prophets have now been fulfilled by his coming (he being the fulfillment of all that was in both Law and prophets), and therefore any attempts by Pharisees, etc. to continue to keep the Law and teach others the need to keep it is fruitless.

The connection in v. 18 and what he has to say about divorce and remarriage may fit in in this way. If a brother who is married becomes involved with another woman (or even perhaps has that in his mind as an attainable goal) and chooses then to put away his wife for the purpose of eventually remarrying woman #2, then that, Jesus says, is "adultery" - at least one more definition other than the normal one. And if this is the underlying reason for the divorce, then the root cause of such behavior is covetousness. And if one thinks that he has done no wrong by such actions, then there is the self-justification that Jesus condemns in v. 15.

2. this is the only parable mentioned by Jesus where a specific name ("Lazarus" <2976> according to Thayer means "whom God helps") is used and there was already or soon would be much talk of a literally resurrected Lazarus.

3. there is no mention of heaven going, or an immortal soul departing from the body, and certainly it would not be literal to have a far away great chasm between heaven and hell where people can see each other, talk to each other, or cool a tongue with a touch of water.

5. on the surface there are complications such as Abraham's Bosom, being tormented by fire in the afterlife, in 'hell'/hades<86>, carried by angels, a great chasm, Lazarus being concious and comforted while dead.

6. according to the Jewish historian (and Pharisee) Josephus, the belief of the Pharisees included the just and unjust dead being confined to separate areas of Hades awaiting judgment. The right hand (for the just) would refer to the portion of light known as Abraham's Bosom where Lazarus went. The left hand (for the unjust) would be fiery torment for the rich man.

7. the Sadducees were wealthy, the priests with their fancy clothes were Sadducees, who unlike the Pharisees didn't believe in the resurrection and denied the existence of angels (Acts 23:8;Matt 22:23,28,30), and together with the Pharisees they comprised the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees "the separated ones" fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12) and lacked the wealth of the Sadducees but they were covetous (Luke 16:14-15).

8. Jesus uses this parable consisting of the false beliefs of the Pharisees to put the Sadducee High Priest Caiaphas in hell and to show that the Pharisees also missed the point and thus were not being elevated above the Sadducees. Caiaphas neglected the spiritual and material needs of the Jews in Israel so perhaps Lazarus represents that neglected class who is heard by God (Luke 18:9-14).

9. Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas (John 18:13-14;Acts 4:6) according to Josephus had 5 brother-in-laws (sons of Annas). After Lazarus was raised the Sanhedrin of Pharisees and Sadducees, despite their doctrinal differences, worked together in seeking to kill Jesus (John 11:43-53,57) and later they agreed to have the tomb secured (Matt 27:62-66). The priests (i.e. Sadducees who didn't believe in resurrection) planned to kill Lazarus as well (John 12:9-10).

Most of the above was gleaned from a talk given by Jay Mayock, Jr., Dec.27, 2012 at Moorestown, NJ, USA.

16:19 The way in which Jesus styles the man as being clothed in “purple and fine linen” is exactly how Jesus later – Rev 18:16 – describes “Babylon”Rev 18:2 thus we can be sure that the person described in the parable has a lifestyle which is not acceptable to God.

16:31 Placing this parable in its historical setting we realise that the parable is spoken after the raising of Lazarus whose name has already been used in the parable so we can see that this parable has a clear historical background. As the parable is directed to the leaders who wanted to kill Lazarus to remove the evidence of Jesus’ work Jesus’ the words “nether will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead” is very telling.

Have you ever wondered whether some amazing sign like a healing, raising from the dead, or a mountain being thrown into the sea would help convince a friend to turn to Christ? For some people, I have no doubt that a miracle like that could be a defining moment. But even miracles fade into a distant and foggy memory. Many people put them down to natural events, coincidences or mind-over-matter.

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the rich man pleaded for Lazarus to be raised from the dead to warn his brothers to repent. The answer he was given was this: "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31 ESV).

Today we have the whole word of God - the Old Testament (Moses and the prophets) and the New Testament, including the words and life of Jesus. The Bible is living and active and just by reading it, it has convinced many of its saving truth and power.

It might be nice to have a miracle, but it is not necessary in most cases. God can chose to work either with a miracle or through his word. Instead of asking only for miracles, let us also be sure to ask that the word of God would be full of power to change lives for good.

16:13 The “unjust steward” was trying to please his master and his master’s creditors – there was a conflict. This can so often be so in our lives today. In seeking to please some we might find ourselves in conflict with the things of God. The resolution is to always assess our responsibility to God first and then act accordingly.

“The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is illustrative of the moral relation of classes in Israel, and not of the national fortunes of Israel. The Lazarus class was as much a part of Israel as the rich man class. No construction of the parable that ignores this can be right. The drapery of the parable is derived from the Pharisee theory of the death-state, and was intended to teach Scribes and Pharisees that they who were ‘first’ should be last, while those whom they made ‘the last,’ by casting out and rejecting them—even himself and his brethren—would be ‘the first’ in the great day of recompense; also to insist on the supremacy of Moses and the prophets as the standard of judgment.” Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, 1874, p. 233 (emphasis added).

16:2 the way in which Jesus presents the rich man learning about his stewards’ miss management is designed to show that the rich man had total trust in his steward. The indication is that Jesus is presenting the rich man as hearing of the steward’s behaviour from others rather than his own investigations,